Balancing risks and rewards

When it comes to regulating areas that affect human health and the environment, the European Union operates under a different paradigm than other areas of the world.

The precautionary principle used in EU lawmaking considers potential risk as being equally important as demonstrated risk. While other legislative systems need proof of harm in order to ban a substance, the EU needs proof of safety in order to allow it. It is a “better safe than sorry” approach.

While this approach has its advantages, there are also risks. Overly cautious lawmaking can stifle research and innovation and make Europe fall behind its competitors. For the crop protection industry, this risk is especially acute. Jean-Charles Bocquet, the director-general of the European Crop Protection Association, says the principle is being misapplied in a way that is stifling innovation in the European agri-food sector.

“For our sector, there are more and more decisions which are taken based on the hazard characteristic of the compound, instead of taking into account the risk of the product,” he says. But this principle isn’t applied to other products. “A high-powered car, which can go at a very high speed, is still on the market as long as you respect the speed limit. Our products are the same thing. We make some products which are more powerful than others.”

“Those solutions need to be on the market,” he adds. “This is the way decisions are taken in many other parts of the world, without negatively impacting health and environment.”

Bocquet argues that the precautionary principle in Europe is resulting in products being left in the basket by researchers rather than moving forward for development. This makes Europe less attractive for investment, he says. In the early 1980s, 30% of overall global investment in crop protection was focused on Europe. Today the overall percentage is down to 8%, according to ECPA’s research.

Concerns over the application of the precautionary principle aren’t just limited to the crop protection sector. Stakeholders throughout the agri-food chain have expressed alarm. They have a sympathetic ear with some in the European Parliament and European Commission. Next week British Conservative MEP Julie Girling will chair a panel discussion looking at how the principle has been applied, or misapplied, in recent years. Research will be presented on ‘risk-risk trade-offs’, the idea that both risk and reward should be examined when considering legislation.

Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has pledged to review the way EU laws are made and the bureaucratic hurdles they present. Frans Timmermans, the Commission’s first vice-president, is leading this exercise.

“Innovation is really at risk, so we are expecting a lot from the new commission,” says Bocquet. “Juncker said there will be no new regulation before a review of the current one, to be sure current regulations are working. We know that for our sector, the current regulations are not working at all. We are hoping for this review will take a fair, balanced decision.”

“Of course we understand the concern of the general public, but we can answer those concerns as long as the regulation is predictable, balanced, and science-based. We shouldn’t have big differences between what is going on in Europe and other part of the world.”